Performance Point system fails because of...

[Nismo34]

Use your brain and test cars you aren't sure about, I don't care how much you tune a '70 Charger it will never out strip a Viper, even if you detuned the Viper to match the Charger. There are just things that no system on earth can calculate accurately and create completely identical cars, especially performance wise. Real life has other variables including parts not working perfectly all the time, even more variables to consider. GT5 has enough variables as well to keep the cars true to life and not have cars magically being able to run with other cars when in reality that would never happen. Some cars can be tuned to run as well as another car, but they will never be equal....that doesn't exist in this reality.

1) That example is invalid, there is no Charger in the game but there is a Challenger

and

2) I accept your challenge, I am going to get a 70's challenger tune it up, Detune my viper to match it, then find the average lap time around a track, and because its a track I know well, I will perform the test at Nurburgring GP/F.
Both cars will be on Racing Softs (If I have time I will test on other tyres),
The challenger will not be RM'ed.
The cars will be setup to my likings prior to the actual test. (the cars will be tuned on a different track to prevent false results being recorded) and then we shall see if it is possible to beat a viper (ACR) with a 70's challenger.

 

[SavageEvil]

1) That example is invalid, there is no Charger in the game but there is a Challenger

and

2) I accept your challenge, I am going to get a 70's challenger tune it up, Detune my viper to match it, then find the average lap time around a track, and because its a track I know well, I will perform the test at Nurburgring GP/F.
Both cars will be on Racing Softs (If I have time I will test on other tyres),
The challenger will not be RM'ed.
The cars will be setup to my likings prior to the actual test. (the cars will be tuned on a different track to prevent false results being recorded) and then we shall see if it is possible to beat a viper (ACR) with a 70's challenger.

What are you talking about? There are a few Chargers in GT5, Charger Super Bee and the '70 Charger (the one that looks like the Dukes of Hazzard General Lee), I should know I own them both. Try to use the Viper Coupe '06 as it's a bit closer to being a straight up street car like the Charger unlike the ACR which is like a street/track car.

 

[Nismo34]

What are you talking about? There are a few Chargers in GT5, Charger Super Bee and the '70 Charger (the one that looks like the Dukes of Hazzard General Lee), I should know I own them both. Try to use the Viper Coupe '06 as it's a bit closer to being a straight up street car like the Charger unlike the ACR which is like a street/track car.

Yea sorry, forot about the Super bee. I havent seen the one that looks like the general lee?? I will try and get the coupe but the ACR is what I already had and with my current funds i could only afford the challenger and mod it. Although it shouldnt matter much. its just to prove that a old car can match a modern car on the same PP level.

 

[sinbad]

1) That example is invalid, there is no Charger in the game but there is a Challenger

and

2) I accept your challenge, I am going to get a 70's challenger tune it up, Detune my viper to match it, then find the average lap time around a track, and because its a track I know well, I will perform the test at Nurburgring GP/F.
Both cars will be on Racing Softs (If I have time I will test on other tyres),
The challenger will not be RM'ed.
The cars will be setup to my likings prior to the actual test. (the cars will be tuned on a different track to prevent false results being recorded) and then we shall see if it is possible to beat a viper (ACR) with a 70's challenger.

Let us know how you get on. Since PP doesn't come with any provisos regarding what you should do r.e modifications/tyres, I thought I'd try a similar test myself.

I took a standard '06 Viper SRT/10 Coupe on its original Sports Hard tyres and at its original 529pp it waltzed easily into the mid 1:09.5Xs at Grand Valley East Section.

I then tuned the '70 Charger 440 R/T to 529pp, but also gave it every other advantage from the Tuning Shop, except of course it remained on Sports Hard tyres. It was much harder to drive, as you might expect, and with some suspension and LSD adjustments I struggled into the high 1:10 bracket. I then upped its PP to 550, and it did not go appreciably faster.

You might say: "Well that's because of the tyres", but of course both cars are on the same tyres, and as I said before, PP does not stipulate anywhere that it only works with certain tyres, if it even does (hence my interest in your findings), and imho this match up could quite easily occur at a 550pp room.

ps: I do not claim to be the best at this game.

 

[C-ZETA]

You can put Peugeot 908s in 600PP restricted races even with all of its downforce. Pretty broken if you ask me...

 

[Nismo34]

You can put Peugeot 908s in 600PP restricted races even with all of its downforce. Pretty broken if you ask me...

Well, seeing as I dnt hve access to a 908 I will use my R10 and limit to 600pp and see how broken it really is.

 

[Nismo34]

And the results are in-
Both cars were limited to 600pp
Both were run on racing softs.
Lap times were run at Nurburgring GP/F
3 laps each.

Viper ACR:
Lap 1) 2:03.847
Lap 2) 2:02.422
Lap 3) 2:02.629

70's Challenger R/T (premium dealer)
Lap 1) 2:03.546
Lap 2) 2:02.937
Lap 3) 2:02.691

Pretty close. In addition to those 2 cars, I also ran 3 more, also limited to 600pp, racing softs, 3 laps Nurburgring GP/F.

Audi R10:
Lap 1) 2:00.372
Lap 2) 2:00.754
Lap 3) 2:00.707

Zonda R:
Lap 1) 2:02.196
Lap 2) 2:01.035
Lap 3) 2:00.875 (Invalid due to slight corner cut)

Nascar:
Lap 1) 2:03.230
Lap 2) 2:02.187
Lap 3) 2:01.912

These are all my results from the cars I tested. If you have a problem with 1 or more of the results, let me know and I shall re-run the test if needed. If you wish me to run the same cars on a different track lemme know. If you have a specific car you wish me to test, tell me. You may need to gift it to me if neccesary and you will recieve it back once test is complete. If you have any enquiries, let me know.

 

[C-ZETA]

And the results are in-
Both cars were limited to 600pp
Both were run on racing softs.
Lap times were run at Nurburgring GP/F
3 laps each.

Viper ACR:
Lap 1) 2:03.847
Lap 2) 2:02.422
Lap 3) 2:02.629

70's Challenger R/T (premium dealer)
Lap 1) 2:03.546
Lap 2) 2:02.937
Lap 3) 2:02.691

Pretty close. In addition to those 2 cars, I also ran 3 more, also limited to 600pp, racing softs, 3 laps Nurburgring GP/F.

Audi R10:
Lap 1) 2:00.372
Lap 2) 2:00.754
Lap 3) 2:00.707

Zonda R:
Lap 1) 2:02.196
Lap 2) 2:01.035
Lap 3) 2:00.875 (Invalid due to slight corner cut)

Nascar:
Lap 1) 2:03.230
Lap 2) 2:02.187
Lap 3) 2:01.912

This is exactly what I mean. Downforce is the main killer of the PP system - it thinks that a car with less power but more downforce than another will result in an equal race.

Although, to be fair, you could just downgrade the faster cars tyres. I reckon Racing Mediums will still make the R10 faster than the ACR though. Racing Hards might still make it a bit faster but they might be roughly equal. Sports Softs is too much of a downgrade, and that's really where my gripe with the games tyre system comes in.

 

[Nismo34]

The Nascars downforce was max, the Zonda's rear downforce was max and the front was as low as possible and the audi r10 was just a tiny bit short. If I had done more laps in the viper and challenger I reckon it could have easily matched it. The R10 lacked the acceleration out of quite a few corners. I really struggled to handle the viper and challenger to their full potential. If it was 10 laps each, I'm nearly 90% positive the gap in the times would have decreased massivly.

 

[Nismo34]

Although, to be fair, you could just downgrade the faster cars tyres. I reckon Racing Mediums will still make the R10 faster than the ACR though. Racing Hards might still make it a bit faster but they might be roughly equal. Sports Softs is too much of a downgrade, and that's really where my gripe with the games tyre system comes in.

On this point, I wanted all the cars on the same tyres so the times were down to solely the car. As the racing softs warm up very quickly It had enough grip to push the cars quite hard half way through first lap. As I was using no aids (except ABS on 1) I needed the most grip with impeding acceleration and the racing softs were the way to do it. 700hp in the challenger and I can just plant the accelerator without having to worry about wheelspin and GP/F is Ideal for this as there is no low speed corners where the shear torque can overpower the tyres.
Yea I agree, there is too much of a gap between Racing hard and Sports soft but then really, Sports tyres are pretty much the street legal tyre of the game. You really cant get much grippier with going to slicks. But thats just my opinion.

 

[Sander 001]

Careful.

You're completely right.

@sander: I never asked for exactly equal lap times only for the obvious large and clearly quite predictable differences to be shown up in the pp rating, and I definitely didn't ask for equal lap times across every circuit, hence my repeated use of "average circuit". I don't mind people arguing with me (or I wouldn't post on an internet forum) but at least argue against what I have actually posted.

What I have to say is that given all this bizarre reaction to criticism of it, the idea that the pp system could not be improved is genuinely funny.

But "average circuit" holds absolutely zero meaning in the context of power to weight ratio or a PP system. Do you understand the statement "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts"? Give it some thought.

Definitely the PP system could be improved by including tire size, track width, frontal area, drag coefficient, drive train friction etc. I'm all for it, the problem with that is even more people will be confused and flustered than they are right now because it still cannot apply to what you're asking and it will likely create even larger disparities.

 

[STIGGY_34]

Castrol Impul GT-R `08 (A AWD race car) lol epic fail
It's a FR dude please get this right

 

[kilttraeger]

Castrol Impul GT-R `08 (A AWD race car) lol epic fail
It's a FR dude please get this right

Speaking about fail... not including the original quote makes your post seem rather random.

 

[STIGGY_34]

hahaha lol good point!!
so late and drained but will take more notice next time

 

[SavageEvil]

Just decided to test my theory with old versus new cars.
I decided to use two cars that I am familiar with on a technical but quick course
Trial Mountain
Dodge Viper '03 (Standard)
Dodge Charger R/T 440 '70 (Standard)

Both cars are tuned to 556PP, seems like an arbitrary number but it's the number I got when I fully lighten the Viper. The Viper has zero engine modifications to it, has all the transmission upgrades, suspension and super soft tires.

Viper Coupe '03 Stats
523hp
550ft/lbs torque
1247kgs
PTW 2.34kg/HP

Charger R/T 440 '70 Stats
660hp
819ft/lbs Torque
1500kgs
PTW 2.23 kg/HP

Fastest Lap around Trial Mountain at 556PP

Charger 1:31.885
Viper 1:28.348

I ran this test in my online lounge, ran laps until I felt comfortable with the cars. Mind you I had to re run the Charger since, first time I had LSD applied. Will take some work to figure that out perfectly, but the time posted is without LSD as I left the Viper with it's factory LSD.

I'll post more findings as I try to make the playing field as level as possible. I'll refurb the chassis and motors on both and run the tests again. The online lounge is great as it doesn't add wear to the motors while running free laps so it's good for tests such as this.

I wouldn't count my times as good as I have to use a DS3 until my achilles heals, I drive much better with a wheel. Honestly the viper is more poised and easier to point and shoot and you would have an easier time driving it as opposed to the Charger. It's power delivery is smooth, another thing is the gearing for the Charger is something that had to be tweaked in order to drive it at speed.

 

[Goudvis]

I personally think it's good that the PP system doesn't take handling in account.
I see PP as a pure power & weight restriction rule, rather than an attempt to rate the cars objectively.

Obviously the way a car handles, feels etc. cannot be quantified. Therefore race cars will be faster than stock cars. Well tuned cars shouldn't be punished.

 

[Goudvis]

Umm you are incorrect, because for example an Elise has more pp than a skyline r32 and it has less power. Handling is aided by a high p/w as well. In addition handling was "quantified in gt5p" if you can recall.

doesn't it have less weight as well?


Also I wasn't claiming PP only depends on weight and power. Just that it doesn't need to reflect how well a car sticks to the road, if it's 4WD or something else etc.
I don't know how it was in Prologue. Just saying I like how it's now. Feel of a car is something personal: i cannot drive the NSX SuperGT, while I really like the Lexus.

 

[sinbad]

But "average circuit" holds absolutely zero meaning in the context of power to weight ratio or a PP system. Do you understand the statement "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts"? Give it some thought.

Definitely the PP system could be improved by including tire size, track width, frontal area, drag coefficient, drive train friction etc. I'm all for it, the problem with that is even more people will be confused and flustered than they are right now because it still cannot apply to what you're asking and it will likely create even larger disparities.

In a way I see what you are saying, but you'd also agree, no doubt, that a PP system designed to only work accurately at a Super Speedway is useless, and so is a PP system designed to only work accurately at Monaco (the ratings for various cars could be greatly different).

So naturally we assume that PD used some common sense and did not put too much stock in either handling or top-speed alone, so that the system would work on more circuits, which is why I refer to an "average circuit".

 

[chuyler1]

Savage,

Although your test has some merit, weight plays a much bigger factor at Trial Mountain.

A better test would be to use two cars that are similar and weigh the same. For example, I have tried an '86 Toyota MR2 vs a '99 Toyota MR-S. Both are mid engine. The MR-S is pretty light so I added weight reduction to the MR2. The MR-S will run at least 2-3 seconds quicker around Trial Mountain despite being the same weight.

One rule of thumb I've been using lately to choose PP cars is the stock tires the car comes with before you mod it. It seems to be that a car that comes with sport hard tires in stock trim will have better grip than a car that comes with comfort soft tires in stock trim. Upgrade both cars to racing tires and the one that originally came with better tires will have more grip. It's the "skinny tire syndrome" again...but at least I know how to identify them.

 

[Sander 001]

In a way I see what you are saying, but you'd also agree, no doubt, that a PP system designed to only work accurately at a Super Speedway is useless, and so is a PP system designed to only work accurately at Monaco (the ratings for various cars could be greatly different).

So naturally we assume that PD used some common sense and did not put too much stock in either handling or top-speed alone, so that the system would work on more circuits, which is why I refer to an "average circuit".

No, no, no! The PP system does not care what the track is. It does not apply to how long the straights are, it does not apply to how tight the corners are. It does not care about any of that. [it's concerned with Newton's second law and maybe the 1st law of thermodynamics if we wanna get sciency]

 

[sinbad]

No, no, no! The PP system does not care what the track is. It does not apply to how long the straights are, it does not apply to how tight the corners are. It does not care about any of that. [it's concerned with Newton's second law and maybe the 1st law of thermodynamics if we wanna get sciency]

Well then in which circumstances is it designed to work?

I'm not saying it adjusts to each track, or that it "cares" how fast the track is.

 

[Dan_]

There aren't two identical cars in the game, however you can equalize PP between diferent models, so simple conclusion : Performance Points are bare estimatives of the overall performance of a given car, and from what I can tell they help a lot to even the field when playing online.

I don't see any problem with the system.

 

[Sander 001]

Well then in which circumstances is it designed to work?

I'm not saying it adjusts to each track, or that it "cares" how fast the track is.

It is designed to work as an equation in algebra measuring energy/energy transfer. Kinetic energy, chemical energy and I think some thermodynamic energy for downforce(maybe an academic can chip in). It adds those variables together to give you a weighted sum.

A racing track cannot be measured like any of that.

 

[sinbad]

It is designed to work as an equation in algebra measuring energy/energy transfer. Kinetic energy, chemical energy and I think some thermodynamic energy for downforce(maybe an academic can chip in). It adds those variables together to give you a weighted sum.

A racing track cannot be measured like any of that.

Oh so at no point did anyone at pd choose which variables to use or what relative value each variable should be given?

You are not really offering any real insight into how the system is implemented. And again, I'm not suggesting any kind of quantification of race tracks, but clearly this is a feature in a game and as such is designed to work within this game. Even if you don't think they gave a moments thought to implementation of this formula or how it will actually work in practice, common sense suggests that they probably did.

 

[Sander 001]

Oh so at no point did anyone at pd choose which variables to use or what relative value each variable should be given?

Yes it does, that's why I said weighted sum, not just sum.

You are not really offering any real insight into how the system is implemented. And again, I'm not suggesting any kind of quantification of race tracks, but clearly this is a feature in a game and as such is designed to work within this game. Even if you don't think they gave a moments thought to implementation of this formula or how it will actually work in practice, common sense suggests that they probably did.

Can you back that up because there's no evidence to suggest that.
When you're doing a math problem, you solve for "x" and "y" etc but never do you solve for "common sense."

 

[sinbad]

Yes it does, that's why I said weighted sum, not just sum.Can you back that up because there's no evidence to suggest that.
When you're doing a math problem, you solve for "x" and "y" etc but never do you solve for "common sense."

In this case, the math problem itself is determined by common sense. Solving a math problem that is not helpful or useful (in this case a formula that does not actually help rank the cars in GT5 in a way that allows them to be matched fairly), is a waste of time, no matter how well you solve it.

This has started with you attempting to shoot down my suggestion that PP is a system used to rank a car's "race-track potential" (call it what you will, everyone knows what I'm referring to) so that it can be matched with other, different, cars of equal "race-track potential" and allow closely matched racing with a broad spectrum of vehicles on the tracks within the game, and as such if the PP does not accurately reflect a car's "race-track potential", then its value is limited.

Please, just tell me what you think all of these algebraic equations (which btw are not half as complex as you are implying) are for, then.

 

[Yev]

Toyota 7 Race Car '70 - 732PP
Chaparral 2J Race Car '70 - 648PP

2J is faster than the Toyota around the track by seconds.

Factors PP system takes into account:
- Power
- Weight
- Downforce

Factors PP system doesn't take into account:
- Grip (tyre width)
- Weight distribution
- Tires
- Aspiration (n/a, turbo. supercharger)
- Drive (AWD, RWD, FF, FR, MR, RR)

Feel free to correct me.

 

[Exorcet]

doesn't it have less weight as well?


Also I wasn't claiming PP only depends on weight and power. Just that it doesn't need to reflect how well a car sticks to the road, if it's 4WD or something else etc.
I don't know how it was in Prologue. Just saying I like how it's now. Feel of a car is something personal: i cannot drive the NSX SuperGT, while I really like the Lexus.

If PP was only hp/weight, we wouldn't need it, and it wouldn't be useful. I think it's an absolute requirement to take cornering into account.

Also, just about everything is objective, though it might be hard see how. You might not like the NSX because its moment of inertia is likely lower, which causes it to be twitchier.

 

[sideshowfrost]

Toyota 7 Race Car '70 - 732PP
Chaparral 2J Race Car '70 - 648PP

2J is faster than the Toyota around the track by seconds.

Factors PP system takes into account:
- Power
- Weight
- Downforce

Factors PP system doesn't take into account:
- Grip (tyre width)
- Weight distribution
- Tires
- Aspiration (n/a, turbo. supercharger)
- Drive (AWD, RWD, FF, FR, MR, RR)

Feel free to correct me.

I think it takes drive into account: IRL Rear wheel drive is faster than 4WD because 4WD weighs more, meaning power-to-weight is lower. If PP didn't take drive into account then a 4WD and *R drive car with the same power/weight would have the same PP, but the 4WD would have the additional advantage of a better power delivery system (i.e. 4WD would always be better than anything else). However, in practice 4WD is pretty much always worse for PP than the equivalent *R car. So, I think they modify PP for drive train, adding a handicapper to 4WD cars, and this handicap is actually a little too big.

N.B. This is my experience from driving everything I thought would be competitive at 400pp - the numbers may change at higher PPs.

 

[chuyler1]

My experience with 450pp and AWD cars is the same. For some reason the 450pp Skylines, EVOs and Scoobies don't perform as well as the MR and FR cars. The only exception is the Dodge Ram which defies the laws of physics by having better cornering speed than sports cars half its weight.